Interpretation ID: 1984-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/06/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheeskin; Hillman & Lazar; P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jacob Sheeskin Sheeskin, Hillman & Lazar, P.C. 6110 Executive Boulevard P.O. Box 2186 Rockville, MD 20852

RE: your file 3189/001:11

Dear Mr. Sheeskin:

This responds to your letter of March 7, 1984, concerning discussions between your client and the Maryland State Police about the application of tinting or sun screening materials to vehicle glazing materials. This office has sent two letters of interpretation concerning the application of glazing materials to the Maryland State Police. I am enclosing a copy of the agency's letters of December 20, 1983 and April 3, 1984 and the Maryland States Police's original request for an interpretation.

As stated in our letter of April 7, 1984, the application of tinting materials to glazing does not, in and of itself, constitute a violation of the render inoperative provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. To violate section 108(a)(2)(A), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops that install tinting materials must knowingly install materials which render inoperative the glazing material's compliance with Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, a motor vehicle repair shop would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) if it knowingly installed on a passenger car's window a tinting material which would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with the abrasion resistance or luminous transmittance requirements of the standard.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 7, 1984

In reply refer to: Our File No. 3189/001:11 Gerald S. Lakas, t/a Custom Window Tinting Services

Frank Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This will confirm my telephone conversations of March 5th and 6th with Steve Oesch, Esquire, of your office. I informed Mr. Oesch that I represent Gerald S. Lakas, t/a Custom Window Tinting Services. Mr. Lakas is in the business of tinting automobile windows in the state of Maryland. On March 2, 1984 he received a call from the Automotive Safety Enforcement Division of the Maryland State Police which in effect ordered him to cease and desist his business immediately. A statement by the Maryland State Police officer was that as a result of a recent court case in Hawaii and as a result of a recent ruling by your office that the addition of tinting film or sunscreen materials to vehicle glazing on passenger cars is not in conformance with abrasion resistance requirements and may also exceed allowable luminous transmittance requirements set forth in 49 CFR 571.205. It is also our understanding that the Maryland State Police issued a directive that Class A Maryland registered passenger vehicles would not be permitted to have window tinting that was not incorporated into the original glazing on any window by the manufacturer.

Mr. Oesch of your office was kind enough to furnish us with a copy of USA Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways and we, of course, reviewed 49 CFR 571.205 as well as 15 USCA 1391, et seq.

After reviewing the above material we came to the conclusion that the addition of tinting film or sunscreen materials in and of itself does not violate any federal regulation as long as the material complies with the luminescence and abrasive requirements. I asked Mr. Oesch if it is possible for us to obtain a statement to this effect from your office and he suggested that I write this letter to you. We have talked to the manufacturer of the tinting material that our client uses and we are assured by the manufacturer that the material complies with federal regulations. We have also suggested to our client that he have his material tested locally to make sure he is in compliance.

For your information we enclose a copy of a letter we have addressed to Captain W.R. Janey of the Maryland State Police Automotive Safety Enforcement Division which explains the position we have taken with said facility. We do not feel that the Maryland State Police had any authority to order Mr. Lakas to cease his operations. We have advised Mr. Lakas that we feel he should stay in business until such time it has been demonstrated that his materials do not comply with federal regulations and if they do not comply we suggested that he seek another supplier of material or that his materials be modified to comply with federal regulations. It is not our client's intention to violate any federal or state law or regulation.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend Mr. Oesch for his very prompt attention to my inquiry. He was most informative and very helpful in resolving my client's problem.

Very truly yours,

Jacob Sheeskin

JS/drw